Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science Technology

Second Straight Rocket Failure For South Korea 143

eldavojohn writes "South Korea suffered its second straight setback today as its Naro-1 rocket carrying a scientific satellite exploded. The rocket produced a bright flash during stage-one ignition as the ground crews lost contact with it. South Korea paired with Russia to produce the Naro-1 and was looking to both relieve its dependence on other nations to put its satellites in orbit and compete with the space programs of China, India, and Japan. Following a failure on August 25, 2009, this marks the second failed attempt for Naro Space Center to launch a Naro-1 rocket. It appears the old adage revolving around the complexities of 'rocket science' remains valid."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Second Straight Rocket Failure For South Korea

Comments Filter:
  • Confused? (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11, 2010 @02:08AM (#32532230)

    North Korea == evil.
    South Korea == good.

  • by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Friday June 11, 2010 @02:45AM (#32532414) Journal

    It is unfortunate people still have to learn from their mistakes when this has already been done at least twice (CCCP and the US). A person might figure they could afford to hire a couple of engineers who already went through this trial and error.

    Actually, the Naro-1 [wikipedia.org] is a Korean-Russian collaboration, with a Russian-built first stage and a Korean-built second stage. It's still unclear at this point which stage (or interaction thereof) caused the problem.

    As an aside, the Russian-built first stage basically a slightly modified first stage of their under-development Angara rocket [wikipedia.org].

  • Not to be nasty (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11, 2010 @03:09AM (#32532484)

    Not trying to be nasty, but if the people that work on the space program are anything like the Korean I'm working with, then maybe they should stop working through the night, stop working 18 hour days, get a weekend off every now and again, and get some proper food and some sleep.

    After a few months of 18 hour days you become a zombie. Regardless of effort (and well done to them for sacrificing their family life for work), Koreans are also human being, and they also need to go home and sleep every now and again, even if "going home" or "sleeping" is not part of the culture.

  • by bezenek ( 958723 ) on Friday June 11, 2010 @03:10AM (#32532486) Journal

    This sounds pretty much like the US space program.

    This is not flamebait.

    The first attempt at launching a US satellite blew up shortly after launch. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_TV3 [wikipedia.org]

    The Explorer program [wikipedia.org] which followed, started with the successful launch of Explorer 1, the first satellite placed by the United States.

    The Explorer program has launched about 100 satellites, but 8 of the first 17 failed.

    Everyone seems to forget that it took a while to make these launches consistent as we saw (mostly) with the Gemini and Apollo missions.

    -Todd

  • by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Friday June 11, 2010 @04:02AM (#32532684)

    Because the DPRK is pushing more GDP into the program and there is the threat of prison for the scientists and engineers, families, parents and grandparents.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aquariums_of_Pyongyang [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yodok_concentration_camp [wikipedia.org]

    No one in the RoK will be imprisoned or killed if they fail at the rocket program. Now...how successful has the DPRK ICBM/orbital program been?

    Not that successful
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy [wikipedia.org]ngsng%2D2
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_missile_test [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwangmy [wikipedia.org]ngsng-1

    Now, the DPRK has SCUD and FROG type missiles that can get a nuke (if their nukes are small and light enough) to the RoK, China and Japan

    The first DRPK nuclear test was most likely a failure, far less than 4 KT and the second was also small, a 1-5 KT or so

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55E5BA20090615 [reuters.com]

    The danger from the DPRK is the massive amounts of conventional artillery and battlefield rockets they have, not nukes. FROGs and SCUDs can be shot down by Patriots, the US and RoK will hammer them with long range PGMs like MRLS and with airpower.

    Seoul would have to be at least nuked before the US would deploy nuclear weapons that close to Russia and China.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11, 2010 @04:40AM (#32532856)

    I had no idea about the giant bunnies. But whoever decided to go for this, must never have heard that rabbits are a pretty bad food source [wikipedia.org]. But I guess I should know by now to take spiegel articles with a grain of salt.

  • by trout007 ( 975317 ) on Friday June 11, 2010 @06:55AM (#32533432)
    You are correct. In mechanical engineering we use Factor of Safety. This means how many times stronger did you design something than your analysis showed it needs to be. For most stuff I build we use a factor of 2-3 because it stays on the ground and the use of extra material is cheaper than taking time to make it light weight. Cars use around the same numbers. Buildings can go as low as 1.67. Aircraft are around 1.5-2.0. Human rated spacecraft are around 1.4 and some unmanned launchers are as low as 1.2. What this means is the lower the number the more analysis and testing you have to do to make sure you know your loads are right. Also not all material of the same specification is the same strength. If you try to break 10 different samples of aluminum you will get a normal distribution of how strong they are. If you are using a FS of 3 who cares. But if you are at 1.2 then you have to send every batch of material out for testing to make sure it is as strong as you designed for.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday June 11, 2010 @09:08AM (#32534224) Journal
  • by anOminousCow ( 905486 ) on Friday June 11, 2010 @11:59PM (#32546244)
    It seems to me that SpaceX spent some time engineering and building a good, reliable engine in the Merlin 1C / Merlin Vacuum. Those 9 engines on the first stage are just 1 more than the 8 on the Saturn 1B, and the Saturn 1B used 8 redstone tanks cobbled together + 1 central tank, really a kludge of a rocket if you ask me.

    Initial reports have that it was the 1st stage, the Russian built stage that failed on Korea's rocket. I'm not sure i've got this right but, an aft looking camera on board showed a bright flash just before they lost communications. Then the rocket's performance dropped and it veered off course before exploding.

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Working...